S06 - Amendment 0007 - ATT 2 - Geotechnical Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

HUNTINGTON VA FIBER DUCTBANK

HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA

NGE PROJECT No. W24044

SUBMITTED TO:

SPEES DESIGN BUILD

KENT, WASHINGTON

SUBMITTED BY:

NGE

ST. ALBANS, WEST VIRGINIA

APRIL 2024

650 MacCorkle Avenue West St. Albans, WV 25177

(304) 201-5180 tel • (304) 201-5182 fax • www.ngeconsulting.com

April 2, 2024

Mr. Josh Wood

Spees Design Build

23830 Pacific Highway S, Ste 203

Kent, WA 98032

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation

Huntington VA Fiber Ductbank

Huntington, West Virginia

NGE Project No. W24044

Dear Mr. Wood, In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements to the existing VA Hospital in Huntington, West Virginia. Authorization to proceed with this project was provided by your acceptance of NGE Proposal PW24537, dated February

5, 2024.

This report presents the results of the field investigation performed to evaluate subsurface conditions and provides our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to design and construction of the project foundations.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can provide any further assistance with this project.

Respectfully submitted, NGE, Noah Stevens, P.E.

Project Engineer

John E. Nottingham, P.E.

Principal Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 TEST DRILLING PROCEDURES

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Soil Conditions

4.2 Results of Laboratory Testing

4.3 Bedrock Conditions

4.4 Groundwater

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation

5.2 Temporary Excavation Recommendations

5.3 Fill and Backfill Recommendations

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 MCR Building Foundations

6.2 Tower Foundations

6.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

7.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS

8.0 IBC SEISMIC SITE CLASS

9.0 CONSTRUCTION TESTING

10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

FIGURES

Figure 1 Test Boring Location Plan Figures 2 to 5 Test Boring Logs for B-1 through B-4 Figure 6 Dynamic Penetrometer Log

APPENDICES

Appendix A Laboratory Testing Results

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions and develop site earthwork and foundation design recommendations for the proposed fiber optic project. The results of our field exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation are presented in the following report. Our actual scope of services consisted of the following items:

• Field coordination including site reconnaissance, drilling supervision and sample logging.

• Drilling of 4 test borings (B-1 through B-4) with standard penetration testing and sampling.

• Performing 1 test probe (P-1) using a portable hand-operated dynamic cone penetrometer.

• Laboratory testing of selected soil and rock samples.

• Preparation of this geotechnical engineering report which includes the following items:

1. Project description.

2. Boring location plan.

3. Test boring logs providing detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations including detailed description of each soil and bedrock layer encountered, standard penetration blow counts, and depth to groundwater.

4. Laboratory test results.

5. A generalized description of subsurface conditions encountered.

6. Recommendations for site preparation.

7. Recommendations for fill placement including suitable material types and compaction criteria.

8. Foundation design and construction recommendations including the site’s suitability for use of shallow spread foundations for the MCR building addition and TR3. Discussions will include the recommended foundation type and depth, allowable foundation bearing pressure, estimated foundation settlement, and any special considerations which may be dictated by site conditions.

9. Deep foundation recommendations for TR1, TR2, and TR3 including allowable geotechnical resistance, and estimated foundation settlement.

10. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete slab-on-grade floor including preparation of floor subgrade.

11. Recommendations for preparation of pavement subgrade.

12. IBC Seismic Site Classification.

2.0 SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project involves improvements to fiber optic services at the existing VA Hospital located in Huntington, West Virginia. We understand the project will include four structures (3 towers and a single-story MCR building addition). The proposed towers are designated as TR1, TR2, and TR3. Towers TR1 and TR2 will be founded on deep foundations and the MCR building addition is planned to be founded on shallow foundations. Tower TR3 will be founded on either shallow foundations or deep foundations. We were not provided with the heights of the proposed towers or any proposed grading during the preparation of this report. Based on the relatively level condition of the proposed structure areas, we expect little to no grading will be required to develop the sites. The locations of each structure, the test boring and test probe locations, and the existing site features are shown on Figure 1.

3.0 TEST DRILLING PROCEDURES

A total of 4 test borings (B-1 through B-4) were drilled to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site. Boring B-1 was drilled at the location of TR2 and Boring B-2 was drilled at the location of TR3. Borings B-3 and B-4 were drilled to establish an overall profile of bedrock in the general vicinity of the planned structures. We were unable to access the location of the proposed MCR building addition and TR1 with a track mounted drilling rig; therefore, a test probe (P-1) was performed in the area of the MCR building/TR1 using hand-operated dynamic cone penetrometer equipment to determine the depth to bedrock. The test boring locations and penetrometer location were selected by others and staked in the field by NGE based on existing site features. The approximate test boring locations and test probe locations are shown on Figure 1.

The test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 25.5 to 30.9 feet using a track-mounted rotary drilling rig equipped with 3-1/4 inch I.D. hollow stem augers. Standard penetration testing and sampling was performed in all the test borings at 2.5 ft. intervals in accordance with ASTM D-1586 procedures. A representative portion of each penetration test sample was placed in an air-tight glass jar for transportation to NGE’s laboratory.

Standard penetration testing (SPT) is performed by driving a 2.0 inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the soil with a 140-lb. hammer dropping a distance of 30 inches using an automatic hammer. The sampler is driven a distance of 18 inches in three 6-inch increments, and the number of hammer blows required to produce the last two 6-inch increments of penetration is termed the “standard penetration resistance” or “N-value”. These values provide an indication of the consistency or relative density of the soil. A 1-3/8 inch diameter sample was retrieved from the split-barrel sampler in conjunction with each penetration test. A representative portion of each sample was placed in an air-tight glass jar. Select samples were also collected from the penetrometer location using hand equipment and placed in air-tight glass jars.

Rock coring was performed within each boring using a NQ sized double tube core barrel equipped with a diamond tipped cutting bit. The rock coring was performed in five foot long runs. Continuous 2-inch diameter bedrock samples were recovered from each core run and placed in a partitioned box. The core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) were measured and recorded in the field for each core run.

Upon completion of drilling, all samples were delivered to our laboratory where they were examined by a geologist and geotechnical engineer. Soil and rock descriptions, standard penetration numbers, and other pertinent subsurface information are provided on the boring logs included in the back of this report (Figures 2 through 5). The dynamic penetrometer log is also included in the back of this report as Figure 6.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations are shown on the test boring logs. The test boring logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on observations made during drilling and examination of the split-spoon and rock core samples. The stratification lines indicated on the test boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock types; however, the actual transition may be gradual. Conditions represented by the test borings should be considered applicable only at the test boring locations. It should be assumed that the reported conditions might be different at other locations. The general subsurface conditions encountered and their pertinent characteristics are described in the following paragraphs.

4.1 Soil Conditions

Approximately 4 to 6 inches of topsoil was encountered at the surface within Borings B-3 and B-4. Asphalt ranging in thickness from 3 to 7 inches was encountered at the surface within Borings B-1 and B-2. The asphalt was underlain by gravel base stone and concrete extending to depths ranging from 0.9 to 1.1 feet below the existing pavement surface.

The soil overburden encountered below the surficial layers consisted primarily of silty to sandy clay and silty sand. Most of the soil overburden appeared to be natural residual soil, although some possible fill material was encountered to a depth of 2.5 feet within Boring B-2.

Residual soils are formed in place by weathering of the underlying parent bedrock. Neglecting surficial samples, standard penetration N-values obtained within the clay ranged from 7 to over 50 blows per foot of penetration (bpf), indicative of a medium stiff to hard cohesive soil condition. The upper 2 feet of clayey soil encountered within Boring B-3 was noted to be soft as indicated by an N-value of 3 bpf. Standard penetration N-values obtained within the sand ranged from 28 to over 50 bpf, indicative of a medium dense to very dense granular soil relative density.

The clayey soils encountered at this site were observed to be predominantly low to moderately plastic based on observation and laboratory testing of the recovered soil samples (CL type soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System). However, some highly plastic soils (CH type) were also encountered at the site. The soil overburden thickness varied from 5.0 to 10.5 feet at the test boring locations.

4.2 Results of Laboratory Testing

The clayey soils encountered at this site were observed to be predominantly low to moderately plastic based on observation and laboratory classification testing (CL type soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System); however, some highly plastic (CH type) soils were also encountered at the site. Laboratory testing of recovered soil samples natural moisture content, Atterberg liquid and plastic limits, and grain size analysis. Unconfined compressive strength testing was also performed on select rock core samples. The results of the laboratory testing are shown on the boring logs and are summarized in Table 4.1 below.

Details of individual laboratory test results are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.1 – Summary of Engineering Classification Testing

Boring &

Depth

Atterberg

Limits Sieve Analysis

Soil Description

LL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines

B-1 / S-2

2.5 – 4.0 ft.

- - 0.0 79.8 20.2 Brown SILTY SAND (SM)

B-1 / S-3

5.0 – 6.5 ft.

50 22 - - - Gray and brown SILTY to SANDY

CLAY (CH)

B-2 / S-1

1.0 – 2.5 ft.

31 10 - - - Gray and brown SILTY to SANDY

CLAY (CL)

P-1 / S-1 & S-2

1.0 – 3.0 ft.

33 8 - - - Brown SANDY CLAY (CL)

4.3 Bedrock Conditions

Bedrock was encountered in the test borings at depths ranging from 5.0 to 10.5 feet.

Refusal on apparent bedrock was encountered within Penetrometer P-1 at an approximate depth of 2.6 feet. It should be noted that the presence of large rock fragments or boulders within the soil overburden can cause test probe refusal prior to reaching refusal on bedrock.

The dynamic cone penetrometer log is included as Figure 6 in the back of this report. The bedrock encountered in the test borings consists primarily of extremely soft to medium hard shale and soft to medium hard sandstone. However, some extremely soft to soft claystone was also encountered within Boring B-4. Detailed descriptions of the bedrock strata encountered at each boring location are provided on the test boring logs (Figures 2 to 5).

4.4 Groundwater

All the test borings were noted to be dry during SPT drilling and sampling. Completion water levels were noted in the test borings at depths ranging from approximately 3.0 to 5.0 feet.

The water levels noted upon completion in the test borings were influenced by the introduction of water into the boreholes as a drilling fluid during rock coring. The presence or absence of water in the boreholes at the time of drilling does not necessarily mean that groundwater will or will not be present at other times or locations. Seasonal variations in rainfall will cause fluctuations in groundwater levels and influence the presence of water in upper soils. Perched water levels may be present above more impervious soil layers.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation

Site plans were not available during the preparation of this report; however, based on the relatively level condition of the proposed structure locations, we expect only minimal grading will be required to develop the site. All existing vegetation topsoil, existing concrete, asphalt pavement or other debris located within the development area should be stripped prior to beginning site grading. As previously discussed, approximately 4 to 6 inches of topsoil was encountered at the surface within Borings B-3 and B-4 and asphalt ranging in thickness from 3 to 7 inches was encountered at the surface within Borings B-1 and B-2. Any structures and underground lines located in the developed area should be removed and/or relocated. All voids created below pad subgrade elevation by removal of underground items should be properly backfilled in accordance with Section 5.3 of this report.

The development of the site should address surface drainage. Appropriate drainage should be provided during site grading and after construction is complete such that surface water does not become ponded or entrapped around structures or cut and fill slopes. Any groundwater seeps which are encountered during site grading operations should be reported to NGE for evaluation.

Proof-rolling of soil subgrade areas should be performed prior to placing new fill and/or crushed stone. A loaded dump truck or other suitable large equipment should be used to perform the proof-rolling. The proof-rolling will cause rutting and/or pumping of soft soils. Any soft soils detected by proof rolling should be undercut to a firm level and backfilled with engineered fill. A qualified soils technician should observe and document the performance of the proof-rolling.

5.2 Temporary Excavation Recommendations

We do not expect any significant excavations will be required to develop the site. Our scope of services did not include recommendations for permanent cut slopes. Any excavation deeper than 4 feet in which workers are required to enter must be properly shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA requirements. Any water which collects within excavations should be promptly removed by pumping from a strategically located sump(s).

5.3 Fill and Backfill Recommendations

As previously discussed, only minimal grading will be required to develop the site. As such, our scope of services did not include recommendations for permanent fill slopes. We expect some backfilling may be required for the project. All existing vegetation topsoil, existing concrete, existing asphalt pavement or other debris located within the development area should be stripped prior to beginning site grading. Any soft areas encountered during the site development should be undercut and backfilled at the direction of a qualified geotechnical engineering firm.

Fill material placed for the project can consist of non-organic soil and rock material with a maximum particle size of 4 inches. Soil fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick loose lifts. Each lift of fill placed within five feet of the footprint of a structure should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor laboratory test (ASTM D698). Fill placed in non-structure areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Each layer of fill or backfill should be tested by a qualified soils technician to determine that adequate compaction has been achieved prior to placement of additional fill lifts. The moisture content of fill or backfill material should be within three percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by a standard Proctor test. We recommend all fill placed below floor slabs should be limited to material with a plasticity index of 16 percent or less.

Limited Space Backfilling

Limited spaces are defined as areas where backfill operations are restricted to the use of small mechanical compaction equipment. Most deficiencies in compacted backfill around subsurface structures have occurred in limited spaces where required densities are difficult to achieve because of restricted working room and relatively low compaction effort or use of equipment that is too lightweight. All structural backfill, including that placed in limited spaces must be systematically compacted to the project requirements, even if crushed aggregate is placed. Oversized rock fragments should not be placed around pipes or other below-ground structures. Backfilling in limited access areas such as utility trenches and around below grade structures such as manholes, junction boxes, curb inlets, etc. should have a lift thickness limited to 4 to 6 inches loose measure. A sufficient amount of testing or observation should be conducted to verify that proper compaction is achieved. In extremely tight spaces, the use of alternate fill materials such as flowable fill should be considered.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Specific detailed information on the foundation loads and settlement tolerances for planned structures was not available at the time this report was prepared. Site grading plans were also unavailable during the preparation of this report. We understand deep foundations are planned for tower structures TR1 and TR2, TR3 will be supported on either deep foundations or shallow spread foundations, and the MCR building addition will be supported on conventional shallow spread foundations. It is also our understanding that micropiles and drilled shafts are being considered as the deep foundation options. We have provided design recommendations for shallow spread foundations, drilled shaft foundations, and micropile foundations in the subsequent sections of this report.

6.1 MCR Building Foundations

As discussed, we expect shallow spread foundations will be used for the MCR building addition. We recommend all exterior foundations be constructed to bear at least 30 inches below finish grade to provide protection against frost heave. Based on penetrometer P-1, shallow bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 2.6 feet which is near the recommended minimum frost protection depth. We recommend all spread foundations be extended to bear directly on bedrock. As discussed, the presence of large rock fragments or boulders within the soil overburden can cause test probe refusal prior to reaching the refusal on bedrock. Therefore, our engineer should verify bedrock is encountered at the base of all foundation excavations.

We recommend spread foundations be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of

3,000 psf. All loose soil and rock fragments should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to concrete placement. In addition, any standing water should be removed from the footing excavations prior to placing concrete. Any spread foundation which is not bearing directly on bedrock at the design bearing elevation should be over excavated to bedrock and then backfilled with unreinforced concrete to the design footing elevation. We recommend the use of 2,000 psi concrete (28-day strength) for backfill. The concrete backfill should be allowed to cure for a minimum of 24 hours. A conventional reinforced concrete foundation can then be constructed atop the unreinforced concrete backfill. The foundation constructed on the concrete backfill can utilize the recommended allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Settlement of spread foundations bearing on bedrock should experience negligible settlement (less than ¼”).

6.2 Tower Foundations

It is our understanding that TR1 and TR2 will be supported on deep foundations and

TR3 will be supported on either deep foundations or shallow spread foundations. Micropiles and drilled shafts are being considered as the deep foundation options. Recommendations for design and construction of each foundation type are provided below:

Option 1 – Micropiles

A micropile foundation system (also known as pin piles) would provide adequate support for the proposed tower structures. Settlement of micropiles designed and constructed as recommended herein should be negligible. Substantial structural design information and guide specifications can also be obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s website, www.fhwa.dot.gov (see Publication No. FHWA-SA-97-070, titled Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines).

Micropiles are drilled and grouted piles that are readily advanced through hard materials such as concrete, boulders and bedrock. They typically range from 5 to 12 inches in diameter and range in working load from 50 to 200 tons in compression and tension. The installation of micropiles requires specialty geotechnical contractors. The most optimum pile design and method of installation may be obtained using a design/build type performance specification, allowing the use of experienced micropile specialty contractors’ methods and expertise to optimize the system. We recommend hiring a contractor which has a minimum of 5 years of experience.

Micropiles are designed to transfer load to the bedrock bearing strata through grout-to-rock bond. We recommend a minimum bond length of 10 feet in bedrock be specified for this project. Longer bond zones may be designed if needed to get the required compressive, uplift, or lateral capacity. Our recommended ultimate grout-to-ground bond strength (αb) for compressive and uplift loading are as follows:

• Compressive Axial Bedrock Bond Strength: αb = 5.0 ksf

• Uplift Axial Bedrock Bond Strength: αb = 2.5 ksf

Micropile capacity should be verified through the performance of micropile load tests. The load testing should follow the procedures specified in ASTM D1143 for compression and ASTM D3689 for tension. We recommend a minimum of 2 load tests be performed.

We recommend all work associated with furnishing and installing micropiles conform to the WVDOT-DOH Special Provisions for Section 616 – Drilled and Grouted Micropiles.

The micropile casing must be seated into competent bedrock a minimum of 1.0 foot. The bond length should be 10.0 ft. minimum into bedrock below the 1.0-foot casing embedment.

Our recommended minimum top of bond zone depths (below the existing ground surface) for each tower structure are summarized in Table 6.2 below. The recommended top of bond zone depths listed in Table 6.2 are based on test borings B-1 and B-2 and test probe P-1.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

Table 6.2 – Recommended Top of Bond Zone Depths

Structure Location

Boring / Probe Location

Top of Bedrock (ft.)

Top of Bond Zone Depth (ft.)

TR1 P-1 2.6 4.0

TR2 B-1 10.5 11.5

TR3 B-2 6.0 7.0

As discussed, the presence of large rock fragments or boulders within the soil overburden can cause test probe refusal prior to reaching the refusal on bedrock. Therefore, verification of competent bedrock should be performed by inspection during installation of each micropile at the location of TR1.

Following drilling of each micropile, the outer casing should be flushed from the bottom up with fresh water to remove all sediment/debris. Flushing should take place with either a tremie tube from the bottom up or with the drill string being removed from the hole.

Reinforcement steel should be lowered through the steel casing and into the rock socket in one continuous operation. Centralizers must be provided at a maximum spacing of 10 feet to maintain the reinforcement within the center of the steel casing/rock socket.

Each pile should be sounded prior to grouting to ensure the hole is open for the full length. Grout should be pumped through a tremie pipe extending to the bottom of the drilled borehole until grout of suitable quality returns to the top of the pile. The contractor should monitor grout levels during pumping operations to verify that the casing was not obstructed and that no grout was lost.

Option 2 - Drilled Concrete Shafts

We understand TR1 and TR2 may be supported using concrete shafts socketed into bedrock. We recommend drilled shaft foundations have a minimum diameter of 30 inches and be socketed into bedrock a minimum of 5 feet. The drilled shafts should be extended deeper if the foundation designer determines longer rock sockets are necessary to resist the design compressive, uplift, or lateral loads. Table 6.2 includes the estimated depths to bedrock below the existing ground surface at each structure location. As discussed, the depth to bedrock must be confirmed during construction at the location of TR1 due to possible shallow refusal of test probe P-1 or rocks or boulders within the soil overburden. Settlement of a drilled shaft foundation extended to bear on competent bedrock should be negligible.

The caissons should be plumb to within two percent of its length. Following completion of the rock socket drilling, the caisson bottom should be thoroughly cleaned such that no excessive amount of sediment, soil, or loose rock is present prior to placement of steel reinforcement and concrete. The bottom of each caisson should be visually inspected immediately prior to placing concrete by a qualified geotechnical engineer. We recommend concrete be placed within 24 hours of completion of drilling to reduce softening of the rock bearing surface.

Concrete placement under dry conditions can be by a free-fall method with the concrete carefully directed down the center of the caisson without striking the casing, the reinforcing steel, or the sides of the drilled shaft. Concrete with a slump of 5 to 8 inches is recommended for use in caissons constructed by the dry method. At the time of concrete placement, the depth of water in the bottom of the shaft should not exceed two inches. If groundwater cannot be controlled and concrete must be placed under wet conditions, then the concrete should be placed by the tremie method using a tube placed at the bottom of the caisson. A minimum of 5 feet of concrete should be maintained above the bottom of the tremie tube.

In addition to providing resistance to compressive forces, the caisson foundation system must also resist uplift forces from overturning wind loads. We recommend the following formulas be used to calculate the allowable compressive load and allowable uplift load resistance of the caisson foundations:

Qall = (Pall x AT) + (FS x AS)

Tall = (FS x AS) + WF

Where:

Qall = Allowable Compressive Load (kips) Tall = Allowable Uplift Load (kips) Pall = Allowable Tip Bearing Pressure (ksf)

AT = Caisson Tip Bearing Area (sq. ft.) = (D/2)2, where D = rock socket diameter (ft).

FS = Allowable Skin Friction of Bedrock Socket (ksf)

AS = Caisson Bedrock Socket Surface Area (sq. ft.) = DLs Where D = rock socket diameter (ft.), and Ls = Length of rock socket Wf = Weight of the Caisson Foundation (kips)

Only the portion of the caisson socketed into bedrock should be considered when calculating skin friction resistance of the caissons. We recommend the following allowable values for tip bearing pressure and skin friction be used in the above formulas:

Pall = 8.0 ksf Fs = 0.7 ksf

Option 3 – Shallow Foundation

We understand TR3 may be supported using shallow foundations. We expect shallow foundations would consist of either individual spread foundations at each tower leg or a reinforced concrete mat type foundation. Based on Boring B-2, bedrock was encountered at a depth of 6.0 feet below the existing ground surface. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions for the tower and minimize differential settlement, we recommend all shallow foundations for TR3 be extended to bedrock as necessary. The foundation excavation bottom must be inspected by our engineer to verify adequate bearing conditions are present over the entire foundation base. Settlement of a spread foundation bearing on bedrock will be negligible (less than ¼”). The foundation bearing on bedrock can be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf. The foundation excavation bottom must be inspected by our engineer to verify adequate bearing conditions are present over the entire foundation bottom. All loose material should be removed from the foundation base prior to placement of concrete. A minimum of 2.5 feet of soil cover should be provided over the foundation for frost protection.

The spread foundation system for the tower should be designed to provide an adequate safety factor against uplift, sliding, and/or overturning. Spread foundation uplift/overturning resistance is provided by the weight of the concrete foundation and overlying soil. In computing the weight of the overlying soil, a soil unit weight of 120 pcf should be used, and the limits of the soil mass effective in resisting uplift loads should be taken as that extending upward and outward from the top of the footing at an angle of 30 degrees with the vertical. A factor of safety of at least 1.25 should be applied to the weight of the soil and concrete foundation when determining the allowable uplift capacity. All backfill placed over the foundation which will be relied on to provide uplift resistance should be placed in accordance with Section 5.3 of this report.

Lateral loads on the mat foundation will be resisted by passive resistance of the soil immediately adjacent to the foundation and friction along the foundation base. The ultimate lateral resistance provided by the existing soil or newly placed fill can be computed using a passive earth pressure coefficient of 3.0 and a soil unit weight of 120 pcf. We recommend a base sliding coefficient of 0.4 be used to compute friction resistance along the base of the foundation. A safety factor of 3.0 should be applied to the computed ultimate resistance when determining the allowable lateral load capacity.

Deep Foundation Lateral Load/Bending Resistance & Tolerable Deflection

The lateral load resistance of deep foundation systems will depend on the stiffness of the foundation element and the lateral resistance of the soil/rock materials in which the foundation element is embedded. The following tables provide our recommended soil and rock parameters for use in an LPILE analysis in determining deep foundation lateral deflections and maximum moments at the abutments. The depths listed are feet below the existing ground surface.

Top of Ground Surface to a Depth of 5 feet - Model as Medium Stiff Clay

Soil Parameter Design Value

Effective Unit Weight 120 pcf

Average Undrained Strength 500 psf

Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 lb./in3

Strain at 50% (50) 0.010

From 5 feet depth to top of Bedrock - Model as Hard Clay

Effective Unit Weight 125 pcf

Average Undrained Strength 3,000 psf

Subgrade Modulus (k) 1,000 lb./in3

Strain at 50% (50) 0.005

Bedrock - Model as Weak Rock

Effective Unit Weight 140 pcf

Young’s Modulus (E) 20,000 psi

Uniaxial Compressive Strength 750 psi

RQD 20 %

krm 0.0001

6.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

We expect slabs-on-grade for the proposed structure will bear on existing soil or newly placed engineered fill constructed in accordance with Section 5.3 of this report. We recommend the subgrade be proof-rolled using a minimum 10-ton smooth-drum roller without vibration. Any areas which exhibit excessive deflection or pumping should be undercut and backfilled with crushed stone under the direction of our engineer. As a minimum, the upper four inches of concrete slab subgrade should consist of free draining crushed stone, such as No. 57 stone to serve as a capillary water barrier and a leveling surface.

We recommend concrete slabs be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of

150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The use of a vapor barrier between the gravel layer and bottom of the floor slab should be at the discretion of the designer who can evaluate the potential impact of water vapor transmission on floor coverings, equipment and/or interior furnishings. In order to control slab cracking, floor slabs should be jointed as per ACI guidelines and any crack control inclusion such as wire mesh should be permanently supported in its proper position and not pulled up with hook bars during concrete placement.

Often there is some delay between initial grading and the time when the contractor is ready to construct the slab-on-grade. Although the subgrade soils may have been thoroughly compacted and passed initial proof-roll testing, exposure to weather, excess moisture and/or construction traffic can destroy the soil’s integrity. We recommend that the construction specifications include provisions for the restoration of the subgrade soils to an acceptable condition prior to construction of floor slabs.

7.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE CONSIDERATIONS

We recommend that the soil subgrade be thoroughly proof rolled, as described in Section 5.1 of this report. If any soft areas are encountered during the proof-rolling, they should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted fill as directed by a qualified soils technician.

All backfill should be placed in accordance with Section 5.3 of this report. It was noted that the upper 2 feet of existing soil near Boring B-3 was noted to be soft and very moist.

Base stone and pavement should be placed immediately after final soil subgrade approval has been obtained due to the potential for subgrade softening from adverse weather conditions. In addition, heavy construction traffic should be limited from traveling across approved final subgrade areas in order to help maintain a stable subgrade prior to pavement construction. All pavement, aggregate material, and placement procedures should be in accordance with the West Virginia Division of Highways Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, latest edition.

The pavement subgrade should be graded such that water does not become ponded or entrapped on or beneath the pavement system. If adequate drainage cannot be obtained by sloping the pavement, an appropriately designed underdrain system should be used. Also, care should be taken to seal all pavement joints and cracks and maintain proper surface water drainage.

8.0 IBC SEISMIC SITE CLASS

Subsurface conditions encountered at the proposed building sites including soil depth, standard penetration values, and material types were considered along with laboratory data to calculate the Seismic Site Class according to the International Building Code (IBC). Using available subsurface data and guidelines established by IBC, the proposed building site falls within Seismic Site Class “C”.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION TESTING

We recommend that a qualified geotechnical firm be retained by the owner to provide a comprehensive construction-testing program to assist the owner in determining that certain aspects of construction are being carried out in conformance with the applicable plans and specifications. This construction testing primarily includes foundation preparation for fill areas and testing of fill materials during placement. The base of foundation excavations should be examined by qualified personnel to verify and document adequate bearing conditions consistent with the observations and recommendations provided in this report are present.

10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

• This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the project’s owner and designers. All recommendations contained in this report have been made in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in the area and at the time where the services were performed. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

• The scope of services represented by this report does not include an environmental assessment, or exploration for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous, or toxic material at the site. Moreover, the scope of services does not include evaluation of the potential for subsidence from past underground mining.

• The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the data obtained from a limited number of soil test borings. The nature and extent of variations in soil conditions between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report and provide additional recommendations.

• Contractors reviewing this report should acknowledge that the discussions and recommendations contained herein are for design information purposes only and may not be sufficient to prepare accurate bids. Any conclusions drawn by the contractor regarding subsurface conditions, quantities of unsuitable soils, rock, groundwater, or methods and means of construction are at their sole risk.

• It is important that the geotechnical engineer be provided the opportunity to review the final construction plans and specifications to verify that the recommendations in this report are properly interpreted and incorporated in the design. It will be the client’s responsibility to furnish the final grading and foundation plans to NGE for the necessary review. If the geotechnical engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of these recommendations.

Figures

B-4

B-3

B-1

B-2

P-1

Scale:

CAD File #

Project No.

Date:

Approved:

Checked:

Drawn:

PR

O

JE

C

T:

C

LI

EN

T:

SH

EE

T:

W24044

NLS

1" = 100' 3-28-24

NA

FIGURE 1

H U

N

TI

N G

TO

N

V A

FI

BE

R D

U C

TB

AN

K

SP

EE

S

D

ES

IG

N

B U

IL

D

BO

R

IN

G

T

ES

T

PR

O

BE

L

O C

AT

IO

N P

LA

N

NOTES

1. BORING & TEST PROBE LOCATION PLAN IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; BORING AND TEST PROBE

LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. SITE PLAN IS BASED ON DRAWING PROVIDED BY SPEES DESIGN BUILD.

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

0 50 100 200

FEET

B-# P-#

0.6 1.1

5.0

10.5

14.4

15.7

20.5

21.5

25.0

26.5

29.1

30.9

PAVEMENT

GRAVEL BASE

Brown SILTY SAND with sandstone fragments, damp, medium dense to very dense

Gray and brown SILTY to SANDY CLAY with residual shale, moist, very stiff to hard

Brown SHALE, very soft to soft, highly weathered

Brown SANDSTONE, soft to medium hard, fine grained, weathered

Brown SHALE, very soft to soft, weathered

Brown SANDSTONE, soft to medium hard, fine granied, weathered

Gray CLAYEY SHALE, very soft

Gray SANDSTONE, medium hard, medium grained

Gray SILTY to SANDY SHALE, soft to medium hard

Gray SANDSTONE with interbedded shale, medium hard, fine grained

Bottom of Test Boring @ 30.9 ft.

10-30-33 (63)

25-18-10 (28)

9-10-14 (24)

18-27-31 (58)

14-50/5"

S ym b ol

U

S C

S

Project Name: Huntington V.A. Fiber Ductbank Huntington, West Virginia

BORING NO.

Novel Geo Environmental

Completion Depth:

Date Boring Started:

Date Boring Completed:

Engineer/Geologist:

Driller:

30.9 ft.

3/6/24 3/6/24

CEM

NGE

R ec ov er y

R Q

D

Offset:

Remarks: Boring was noted to be dry during augering and soil sampling. Water was noted at 5.0 ft. at boring completion.

Figure 2

B- 1

The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries.

In situations, the transition may be gradual.

Depth to Water @ 24 hrs.: ---

Shelby Tube

Bag Sample

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl e

T yp e

M oi st u re

Project Number: W24044

B lo w C o un t (N

-V a lu e)

Location: See Figure 1

Surface El.: ---

S ilt a nd

C la y

S an d

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Split Spoon

Rock CoreD ep th fe et

E le va tio n, f ee t

N G

E B

A S

IC

L

O G

N

O P

E N

E T

R O

M E

T E

R

L O

G R

E P

O R

T S

.G P

J N

G E

.G D

T

/2

0.4 0.7 0.9

6.0

26.5

ASPHALT PAVMEMENT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL BASE

Brown and gray SILTY to SANDY CLAY, moist, medium stiff to hard

- possible fill to 2.5 ft.

- w/residual shale from 2.5 ft.

Brown SANDY to SILTY SHALE, extremely soft to soft, highly weathered

Bottom of Test Boring @ 26.5 ft.

10313-3-4 (7)

14-17-14 (31)

24-46-50/5"

S ym b ol

U

S C

S

Project Name: Huntington V.A. Fiber Ductbank Huntington, West Virginia

BORING NO.

Novel Geo Environmental

Completion Depth:

Date Boring Started:

Date Boring Completed:

Engineer/Geologist:

Driller:

26.5 ft.

3/6/24 3/6/24

CEM

NGE

R ec ov er y

R Q

D

Offset:

Remarks: Boring was noted to be dry during augering and soil sampling. Water was noted at 4.0 ft. at boring completion.

Figure 3

B- 2

The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries.

In situations, the transition may be gradual.

Depth to Water @ 24 hrs.: ---

Shelby Tube

Bag Sample

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl e

T yp e

M oi st u re

Project Number: W24044

B lo w C o un t (N

-V a lu e)

Location: See Figure 1

Surface El.: ---

S ilt a nd

C la y

S an d

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Split Spoon

Rock CoreD ep th fe et

E le va tio n, f ee t

N G

E B

A S

IC

L

O G

N

O P

E N

E T

R O

M E

T

G R

E P

O R

T S

.G P

J N

G E

.G

0.3

8.0

22.0

29.4

30.9

TOPSOIL

Brown SILTY to SANDY CLAY, moist, soft to very stiff

- w/rock fragments (0.0 - 1.5 ft.)

- highly plastic (0.0 - 5.0 ft.)

- brown and gray from 2.5 ft.

- w/residual shale from 5.0 ft.

Brown SHALE, very soft to soft, weathered

- brown and gray from 16.5 ft.

- gray from 18.5 ft.

Gray and brown SANDSTONE, soft to medium hard, medium grained

- w/interbedded shasle from 26.4 ft.

Gray SHALE, soft

Bottom of Test Boring @ 30.9 ft.

2-1-2 (3)

3-5-6 (11)

8-12-15 (27)

26-50/5"

27-50/5"

S ym b ol

U

S C

S

Project Name: Huntington V.A. Fiber Ductbank Huntington, West Virginia

BORING NO.

Novel Geo Environmental

Completion Depth:

Date Boring Started:

Date Boring Completed:

Engineer/Geologist:

Driller:

30.9 ft.

3/7/24 3/7/24

CEM

NGE

R ec ov er y

R Q

D

Offset:

Remarks: Boring was noted to be dry during augering and soil sampling. Water was noted at 3.0 ft. at boring completion.

Figure 4

B- 3

The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries.

In situations, the transition may be gradual.

Depth to Water @ 24 hrs.: ---

Shelby Tube

Bag Sample

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl e

T yp e

M oi st u re

Project Number: W24044

B lo w C o un t (N

-V a lu e)

Location: See Figure 1

Surface El.: ---

S ilt a nd

C la y

S an d

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Split Spoon

Rock CoreD ep th fe et

E le va tio n, f ee t

N G

E B

A S

IC

L

O G

N

O P

E N

E T

R O

M E

T

G R

E P

O R

T S

.G P

J N

G E

.G

0.5

5.0

9.0

12.5

16.5

17.9 18.5

19.3 19.9

21.3

23.9

25.5

TOPSOIL

Brown SILTY SAND with sandstone fragments, damp, very dense

Brown SANDSTONE, soft to medium hard, medium grained, weathered

Gray CLAYSTONE, extremely soft to soft

Gray SHALE, very soft to soft

Gray CLAYSTONE, very soft

Gray SILTY SHALE, medium hard Gray SANDSTONE, medium hard, fine grained

Gray SHALE, soft

Gray SANDSTONE, medium hard, fine grained

Gray SILTY to SANDY SHALE, soft to medium hard

Gray SANDSTONE with interbedded shale, soft to medium hard, fine grained

Bottom of Test Boring @ 25.5 ft.

16-36-36 (72)

28-31-19 (50)

50/6"

S ym b ol

U

S C

S

Project Name: Huntington V.A. Fiber Ductbank Huntington, West Virginia

BORING NO.

Novel Geo Environmental

Completion Depth:

Date Boring Started:

Date Boring Completed:

Engineer/Geologist:

Driller:

25.5 ft.

3/7/24 3/7/24

CEM

NGE

R ec ov er y

R Q

D

Offset:

Remarks: Boring was noted to be dry during augering and soil sampling. Water was noted at 3.0 ft. at boring completion.

Figure 5

B- 4

The stratification lines represent approximate strata boundaries.

In situations, the transition may be gradual.

Depth to Water @ 24 hrs.: ---

Shelby Tube

Bag Sample

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S am pl e

T yp e

M oi st u re

Project Number: W24044

B lo w C o un t (N

-V a lu e)

Location: See Figure 1

Surface El.: ---

S ilt a nd

C la y

S an d

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic ity I nd ex

Split Spoon

Rock CoreD ep th fe et

E le va tio n, f ee t

N G

E B

A S

IC

L

O G

N

O P

E N

E T

R O

M E

T

G R

E P

O R

T S

.G P

J N

G E

.G

WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1

Novel Geo-Environmental, PLLC

1116 Smith Street - Suite 312 PROJECT NUMBER: W24044

Charleston, WV 25301 DATE STARTED: 03-06-2024

DATE COMPLETED: 03-06-2024

HOLE #: P-1

CREW: BW SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A

PROJECT: Huntington VA Fiber Ductbank WATER ON COMPLETION: N/A

ADDRESS: HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs.

LOCATION: Huntington, West Virginia CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm

BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY

DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm² 0 50 100 150 N' NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE

- 4 17.8 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF

- 4 17.8 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF

- 1 ft 4 17.8 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF

- 5 22.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF

- 7 31.1 ••••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF

- 2 ft 9 40.0 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF

- 21 93.2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF

- 100 444.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••25+ VERY DENSE HARD

- 3 ft

- 1 m

- 4 ft

- 5 ft

- 6 ft

- 2 m

- 7 ft

- 8 ft

- 9 ft

- 3 m 10 ft

- 11 ft

- 12 ft

- 4 m 13 ft

P-1

FIGURE 6

Appendix A

Phone: (304)201-5180 Fax: (304)201-5182 www.ngeconsulting.com

Boring No. Sample Depth (ft.) % Moisture Boring No. Sample Depth (ft.) % Moisure

B-1 1-2.5 11.7%

B-1 2.5-4 8.9%

B-1 5-6.5 18.1%

B-1 7.5-9 13.1%

B-2 1-2.5 9.8%

B-2 2.5-4 8.0%

B-3 0-1.5 27.8%

B-3 2.5-4 23.6%

B-3 5-6.5 15.2%

B-4 0-1.5 9.6%

B-4 2.5-4 8.8%

MOISTURE CONTENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Huntington VA Fiber Ductbank

W24044

Tested By: CTD Checked By: CEM

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NGE, LLC

St. Albans, West Virginia Figure

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 5.0 - 6.5 ft. Sample Number: 3

Gray and brown SILTY to SANDY CLAY 50 28 22

W24044 Spees Design Build

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NGE, LLC

St. Albans, West Virginia Figure

Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 1.0 - 2.5 ft. Sample Number: 1

Brown and gray SILTY to SANDY CLAY 31 21 10

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NGE, LLC

St. Albans, West Virginia Figure

Source of Sample: P-1 Depth: 1.0 - 3.0 ft. Sample Number: 1 & 2

Brown SANDY CLAY 33 25 8

Tested By: JCN Checked By: CEM

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 2.5 - 4.0 ft. Sample Number: 2

NGE, LLC

St. Albans, West Virginia Figure

0.4648 0.2738 0.2301 0.1518

Brown SILTY SAND

W24044 Spees Design Build

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 61.8 20.2 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

Project Name:

Project # : Date :

Core # : Depth:

#1 #2 #3

Avg.

Correction Factor:

3.0377 in2 Flatness of Sample:

2520 lbs Surface Straightness:

830 lbs/in2 Moisture Condition:

60 tons/ft2 Deformation Rate: 76 s

Corrected Strength : 830 lbs/in2 Type of Break:

Corrected Strength : 60 tons/ft2

Remarks:

Tested by: Checked by:

Figure #

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

10541 TEAYS VALLEY ROAD

SCOTT DEPOT, WV 25560

PHONE NO. (304) 755-0721

FAX NO. (304) 755-1880

Rock Core Compressive Strength Worksheet

ASTM D7012

W24044 VA FIBER DUCTBANK

04-24-0026 3/29/2024

B-1 16.5' - 17.0'

Sample Description: LIGHT BROWN SHALE

Measurements (inches)

Length Diameter

3.900 1.967

3.901 1.967

3.903 1.966

3.901 1.967

Length to Diameter Ratio : 1.98 1

Area: FLAT

Load: STRAIGHT

Compressive Strength: DRY

Compressive Strength:

B

NRC BRETT MORRIS

Core # : Depth:

#1 #2 #3

Avg.

Correction Factor:

3.0594 in2 Flatness of Sample:

2810 lbs Surface Straightness:

918 lbs/in2 Moisture Condition:

66 tons/ft2 Deformation Rate: 72 s

Corrected Strength : 918 lbs/in2 Type of Break:

Corrected Strength : 66 tons/ft2

Remarks:

Tested by: Checked by:

Figure #

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

10541 TEAYS VALLEY ROAD

SCOTT DEPOT, WV 25560

PHONE NO. (304) 755-0721

FAX NO. (304) 755-1880

Rock Core Compressive Strength Worksheet

ASTM D7012

W24044 VA FIBER DUCTBANK

04-24-0026 3/29/2024

B-2 7.5' - 8.0'

Sample Description: BROWN SHALE

Measurements (inches)

Length Diameter

4.030 1.975

4.028 1.972

4.031 1.974

4.030 1.974

Length to Diameter Ratio : 2.04 1

Area: FLAT

Load: STRAIGHT

Compressive Strength: DRY

Compressive Strength:

Core # : Depth:

#1 #2 #3

Avg.

Correction Factor:

3.0677 in2 Flatness of Sample:

3010 lbs Surface Straightness:

981 lbs/in2 Moisture Condition:

71 tons/ft2 Deformation Rate: 86 s

Corrected Strength : 981 lbs/in2 Type of Break:

Corrected Strength : 71 tons/ft2

Remarks:

Tested by: Checked by:

Figure #

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

10541 TEAYS VALLEY ROAD

SCOTT DEPOT, WV 25560

PHONE NO. (304) 755-0721

FAX NO. (304) 755-1880

Rock Core Compressive Strength Worksheet

ASTM D7012

W24044 VA FIBER DUCTBANK

04-24-0026 3/29/2024

B-4 6.0' - 6.5'

Sample Description: BROWN SANDSTONE

Measurements (inches)

Length Diameter

3.962 1.975

3.960 1.977

3.958 1.977

3.960 1.976

Length to Diameter Ratio : 2.00 1

Area: FLAT

Load: STRAIGHT

Compressive Strength: DRY

Compressive Strength:

B

Core # : Depth:

#1 #2 #3

Avg.

Correction Factor:

3.1500 in2 Flatness of Sample:

570 lbs Surface Straightness:

181 lbs/in2 Moisture Condition:

13 tons/ft2 Deformation Rate: 79 s

Corrected Strength : 181 lbs/in2 Type of Break:

Corrected Strength : 13 tons/ft2

Remarks:

Tested by: Checked by:

Figure #

TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.

10541 TEAYS VALLEY ROAD

SCOTT DEPOT, WV 25560

PHONE…